Anthony writes: > Over 100 might have been a slight exggeration - I guesstimated > rather than > counting each one.
My goodness. I can't believe you'd ever exaggerate a factual claim. I'm astonished. > There are over 1 different versions of CC-BY-SA 3.x. They are sufficiently interchangeable or interoperable, however, that they can be treated as one license for our purposes. > (I believe there are > over 30 of them too, but I don't care to count them.) I'm sure if *you* counted them there would be "over 100" at least. > As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported? You know, the one that says "You must > not > distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in > relation to the > Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or > reputation"? > > That'll be a hilarious license to use on the encyclopedia that > anyone can > mutilate, modify or take derogatory action in relation to. As Erik has explained, this is part of the moral-rights language necessary to the license such that it can be applied in moral-rights- honoring jurisdictions. Perhaps you could write us a little essay on how you well you think GFDL addresses the moral-rights question. I look forward to your sharing your expertise, Counselor. >> It's hard to make the argument that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is somehow weaker >> than GFDL when Stallman himself thinks it isn't. >> > What about the argument that the differences between licenses can't be > judged on a one-dimensional scale of weak vs. strong? That argument requires that you analyze GFDL on every dimension that you analyze CC-BY-SA 3.0 on. I look forward to your analysis, Counselor. --Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l